If vaccination is so great, why the hard sell? The benefits should be so self-evident that everyone would be willing to sign up,. Assuming the number of deaths has been reported correctly, and that is a big leap of faith, the reported deaths are no greater than in the great influenza epidemic of 1917. I shouldn't need to point out that …
If vaccination is so great, why the hard sell? The benefits should be so self-evident that everyone would be willing to sign up,. Assuming the number of deaths has been reported correctly, and that is a big leap of faith, the reported deaths are no greater than in the great influenza epidemic of 1917. I shouldn't need to point out that the population of the United States today is significantly greater than the population was in 1917, so the deaths assigned to this epidemic are less percentage wise than the 1917 plague. Why is this one so hysterically reported when it it no worse than 1917? Our medical facilities are more advanced than in 1917 when there were no antibiotics. Intravenous infusion of fluids was unknown, proctoclysis was state of the art for fluid infusion. While that technique is still practiced in third world countries to counter dehydration, intravenous infusion is more efficient. Oxygen therapy was unknown. When I was a child during the polio epidemics, the iron lung was the state of the art for respiration therapy. I think there is no longer anyone on iron lung therapy. Does everybody reading this even know what an iron lung is? In 1917 the iron lung had not yet been invented.
Even the early die-hard socialist Woody Wilson didn't dare try the tactics imposed on the large population of sheep we have become but apparently were not in 1917. In any listing of western power hungry wannabe dictators, Woody would certainly qualify to be in the top twenty but even he knew the citizens of this country wouldn't stand for what such a large percentage of our country happily embrace today. What has happened?
If vaccination is so great, why the hard sell? The benefits should be so self-evident that everyone would be willing to sign up,. Assuming the number of deaths has been reported correctly, and that is a big leap of faith, the reported deaths are no greater than in the great influenza epidemic of 1917. I shouldn't need to point out that the population of the United States today is significantly greater than the population was in 1917, so the deaths assigned to this epidemic are less percentage wise than the 1917 plague. Why is this one so hysterically reported when it it no worse than 1917? Our medical facilities are more advanced than in 1917 when there were no antibiotics. Intravenous infusion of fluids was unknown, proctoclysis was state of the art for fluid infusion. While that technique is still practiced in third world countries to counter dehydration, intravenous infusion is more efficient. Oxygen therapy was unknown. When I was a child during the polio epidemics, the iron lung was the state of the art for respiration therapy. I think there is no longer anyone on iron lung therapy. Does everybody reading this even know what an iron lung is? In 1917 the iron lung had not yet been invented.
Even the early die-hard socialist Woody Wilson didn't dare try the tactics imposed on the large population of sheep we have become but apparently were not in 1917. In any listing of western power hungry wannabe dictators, Woody would certainly qualify to be in the top twenty but even he knew the citizens of this country wouldn't stand for what such a large percentage of our country happily embrace today. What has happened?
Your first sentence says it all! Your comments about Woodrow Wilson are interesting. How we have changed as a people since then.
Woody has popped up in a lot of reading I have been doing about WWI. Most authors have been less than laudatory about his quest for "greatness".
We've been mind-conditioned…